The next wave and attorneys lining up to force privacy compliance are here with Shay Legal and their founder Daniel Shay a “Consumer Rights Attorneys” who says on his website that “We Fight Big Business For Consumers.”
If You Have Received A Privac Lawsuit or Demand Letter Contact Us Right Away For a Template to Respond Back With
A recent demand letter co-authored by Shay Legal, APC who is teaming up with Swigart Law the most notorious privacy litigation firm out of San Diego California signals an aggressive escalation in consumer privacy litigation, zeroing in on a pervasive yet often hidden practice: the use of third-party tracking technologies on commercial websites. This firm, whose founding principal attorney, Daniel G. Shay, focuses exclusively on consumer rights and has recovered millions for clients, is positioning itself on the cutting edge of digital data protection, wielding powerful state and federal statutes against companies it alleges are engaging in covert surveillance.
The Core Allegation: Procuring Electronic Interception
The central premise of these common claims is that a website operator (defendant) referred to in the letter as “Respondent” violated privacy laws by installing tracking software, specifically a well-known “pixel” snippet, into its website’s HTML code. We have detailed what the Meta-Pixel does and how the best way to resolve these claims is to install our software to stop the next 10 law firms lining up to sue.
The legal argument hinges on the fact that this pixel effectively “procured and aided” the technology company (Meta) to intercept a user’s electronic communications with the website. This process, detailed by the firm’s analysis, occurs instantaneously the moment a user visits the site, before any possibility of meaningful consent. The user’s web browser, upon receiving a “GET request” from the site’s server, is simultaneously directed to send a separate, often identical, request containing referrer data to the third-party tracker’s server. This is the conduct alleged to be unlawful.
The firm emphasizes that the data intercepted is significant, including the full-string, detailed URL for each page viewed and website folder/sub-folder information. Critically, the letter provides evidence, including a “Meta Pixel Helper” screenshot and a log of network traffic (a HAR file analysis), to confirm the tracker’s presence and activity on the site.
Below you will see an example of these claims including what we’ve often warned about the Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) for damages that are $100 a day or $10,000 whichever is greater.
A Multi-Layered Data Privacy Legal Assault
Shay Legal, APC, in conjunction with co-counsel, is utilizing an array of formidable statutes to construct this claim, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of both federal and California-specific privacy law as we showcased above.
Federal Wiretapping Violations
The firm leads with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq, which makes it unlawful to intentionally procure another person to intercept any electronic communication. The letter asserts that procuring a third party (Meta) to intercept communications via the pixel violates the ECPA, particularly when done for the purpose of committing further unlawful acts, such as the torts and statutory violations listed. The letter cites judicial precedent affirming the ECPA’s protection of sensitive digital data transmitted via websites and notes a recent Ninth Circuit ruling rejecting retroactive consent for wiretapping. ECPA violators face significant statutory damages, including a minimum of $10,000, plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees. As we saw with the Aspen Dental settlement of $18.7 million dollars that these claims can run up pretty fast.
The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)
The firm heavily relies on multiple sections of the CIPA, leveraging its broad scope and significant statutory damages:
- Wiretapping (§ 631(a)): This section is invoked against any person who “aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person (such as Meta) to intentionally tap” an electronic communication without the consent of all parties. The firm points out that courts have affirmed CIPA’s application to “new technologies” like the internet. Each violation under this section is subject to $5,000 in statutory damages.
- Pen Register and Trap and Trace Violations (§ 638.51): The letter also alleges violations of the CIPA provisions that prohibit the installation or use of “pen registers” or “trap and trace devices” without a court order. The firm argues that the pixel’s function—recording or decoding routing, addressing, or signaling information, or capturing incoming signaling information to identify the source of a communication—falls squarely under the definitions of these devices. Violations of this section are also subject to cumulative statutory damages of $5,000 per violation.
Common Law and Other Statutory Claims
Further supporting the firm’s position are claims under some fairly new allegations that we haven’t commonly seen in privacy litigation prior:
- Intrusion Upon Seclusion and Invasion of Privacy: Alleging that the non-consensual, surreptitious data collection satisfies the legal test of a “highly offensive” intrusion where a reasonable expectation of privacy existed.
- Trespass to Personal Property (via digital tracking technologies like the _fbp cookie), Statutory Larceny, and various unfair competition and deceptive practices statutes.
The Settlement Calculus
The total statutory damage demand outlined in the letter that was recently shared with us calculates to $40,000, which includes:
- CIPA § 631 Violations: $15,000 (three alleged interceptions, including the pixel and two other identified third-party trackers).
- CIPA § 638.51 Violations: $15,000 (three separate violations for the Pen Register/Trap and Trace claims).
- ECPA Violation: $10,000 (statutory damages).
Crucially, the firm asserts its right to seek attorney’s fees and costs, which the ECPA expressly authorizes, indicating a determination to pursue full recovery for the significant legal work involved in investigating and litigating these technically complex claims.
In summation, this demand letter from Shay Legal, APC, serves as a clear warning to anybody running a website and collecting consumer data even if unknowingly. The days of covert, real-time data interception via tracking pixels are being met with sophisticated, high-stakes litigation that leverages decades-old wiretapping laws for the digital age. This firm is an active participant in defining the new boundaries of consumer privacy on the internet and is just one of the many law firms along with Tauler Smith, Levi & Korsinsky, Pacific Trial Attorneys, and a dozen others who are going to come after any website that is in violation if they are not using privacy software to respect users consent preferences.
The solution is to book a demo and let us help you with a response and getting your website compliant.
